f you read the report fully, you will see that it does indeed argue for a more easily obtainable IR, which is about all they can do, hamstrung as they are with airspace and rules which could not permit an IMC rating.
Yes, you are right - that is the trouble with speed reading a 62 page document in French
.
It mentions the content of the extensive theoretical element as not being suited or necessary to real conditions. It also suggests that a reduced theoretical knowledge could be devolved down and be administered by local organisations.
All this supports what I believe bose-x and others have been arguing for, a review of the training requirements of the IR across the EU which only incorporates those elements necessary for the IR and places other airline orientated parts in their proper place, i.e. in the CPL or ATPL exams. There have already been some changes to the theory element in JAR-FCL 1 but these await implementation by the CAA (bose-x will shoot me down if I am wrong on this).
We have to fight for what is achievable. Reading what has been said it seems that national ratings will go - we should not be wasting time arguing for something which is not achievable in the current legal structure (and I doubt the UK will or can withdraw from EASA). Can any country file national differences as they can under ICAO? I don't know the answer nor what would be involved in doing this.
What we seem to have is support from other countries, e.g. France, for the idea of devolving down the implementation of EASA licensing requirements and training. We could therefore see exams administered at local level as in the PPL training. We already have a split in the practical training requirements. Perhaps we should be building on this.